|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: I am a: | |||
| former statist who has converted to AC |
   
|
29 | 70.73% |
| former ACer who has converted to statism |
  
|
12 | 29.27% |
| Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#101
10-02-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
If he bets the river as well, I can fold knowing that I'm behind almost always. [/ QUOTE ] Huh ? You really think 99-QQ almost never bets 1/2 pot turn and river ? Tons of mediocre players play like this, especially if the turn and river fall below their PP. 
|
|
#102
10-02-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If he bets the river as well, I can fold knowing that I'm behind almost always. [/ QUOTE ] Huh ? You really think 99-QQ almost never bets 1/2 pot turn and river ? Tons of mediocre players play like this, especially if the turn and river fall below their PP. [/ QUOTE ] But it hasn't fallen below their PP, because we have a Q and a T by the river. And, NO, NO, NO... Tons of mediocre players do NOT bet flop into a pre-flop raiser + cold-caller and then fire bets on both turn and river with a lower PP. And why would it be a mediocre player? It's probably from a higher stakes tournament. But you obv knows best, cause you play a bazillion low-limit 2-table SNG's... I repeat what others have said and this is a fact: By calling the flop we are able to make the most when we're ahead and lose less when we're behind! Just indulge those words and move on...
|
|
#104
10-02-2007, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If he bets the river as well, I can fold knowing that I'm behind almost always. [/ QUOTE ] Huh ? You really think 99-QQ almost never bets 1/2 pot turn and river ? Tons of mediocre players play like this, especially if the turn and river fall below their PP. [/ QUOTE ] But it hasn't fallen below their PP, because we have a Q and a T by the river. And, NO, NO, NO... Tons of mediocre players do NOT bet flop into a pre-flop raiser + cold-caller and then fire bets on both turn and river with a lower PP. And why would it be a mediocre player? It's probably from a higher stakes tournament. But you obv knows best, cause you play a bazillion low-limit 2-table SNG's... I repeat what others have said and this is a fact: By calling the flop we are able to make the most when we're ahead and lose less when we're behind! Just indulge those words and move on... [/ QUOTE ] Q,T adds no certainty to this hand on either side. His uncertainty that our hand has improved is countered by our mirrored uncertainty. I don't see how you speak confidently about how a range of players would play an unimproved pair, or an improved pair. Lots of good players try to suck out pieces with an improved premium hand in this manner -- disguising one's hand is not just for donks. Just as lots of mediocre players will 1/2-2/3 pot bet all streets with an unimproved high pair, if for no other reason than they're afraid to face an overbet. I don't think you can confidently say that a clear minority of good players try to move all the chips in with an improved premium hand, just as you can't confidently say that a clear majority of mediocre players with an unimproved high pair will give up after the turn. Calling the flop does nothing to protect our hand. We let villain control the action when we have a hand that is very unlikely to improve.
|
|
#105
10-03-2007, 06:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
Q,T adds no certainty to this hand on either side. His uncertainty that our hand has improved is countered by our mirrored uncertainty. [/ QUOTE ] What's wrong with both players being uncertain about eachother's hands? If you raise the flop, he can narrow down your range pretty much and fold if he thinks you will stick by your top pair. You mentioned checking down if he elects to call your flop raise and that you might fold to a large turn/river bet if unimproved. What if Villain knows senses that based on reads? When he calls your flop raise, he has narrowed down your range a lot, and you know nothing about his hand. He could have a monster, but he could also be calling with any two cards, knowing he can exploit your tendency to fold later and drag a nice pot with a pure bluff. [ QUOTE ] I don't see how you speak confidently about how a range of players would play an unimproved pair, or an improved pair. Lots of good players try to suck out pieces with an improved premium hand in this manner -- disguising one's hand is not just for donks. Just as lots of mediocre players will 1/2-2/3 pot bet all streets with an unimproved high pair, if for no other reason than they're afraid to face an overbet. I don't think you can confidently say that a clear minority of good players try to move all the chips in with an improved premium hand, just as you can't confidently say that a clear majority of mediocre players with an unimproved high pair will give up after the turn. [/ QUOTE ] No-one can do this confidently, but based on reads and experience from similar situations, we can relate different holdings to different actions, and we are able to do it with good precision. Further action allows us to narrow down his hand range even more... But since you're under the assumption that "dynamic hand reading is vastly overvalued", I feel it's no use in trying to convince you into thinking the opposite. [ QUOTE ] Calling the flop does nothing to protect our hand. We let villain control the action when we have a hand that is very unlikely to improve. [/ QUOTE ] And why is it wrong to let Villain control the pot and continue putting chips without knowing what we have? If Villain has a hand that we beat, he is just as unlikely to improve as we are. Only thing is, we don't have to improve, because we have him beat. You said Bond et al can't see the forest for all the trees, I say it's the other way around. You are too [censored] obsessed with your I-have-already-won-my-expected-share-thinking that you can't see any other way to play than just raise the flop and end it right there. That line is utterly stupid. If you can gain more chips from your opponent by calling, of course you should do so. I don't think betgo posted this hand because he thought his flop play was wrong.
|
|
#106
10-03-2007, 07:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with both players being uncertain about eachother's hands? If you raise the flop, he can narrow down your range pretty much and fold if he thinks you will stick by your top pair. You mentioned checking down if he elects to call your flop raise and that you might fold to a large turn/river bet if unimproved. What if Villain knows senses that based on reads? When he calls your flop raise, he has narrowed down your range a lot, and you know nothing about his hand. He could have a monster, but he could also be calling with any two cards, knowing he can exploit your tendency to fold later and drag a nice pot with a pure bluff. [/ QUOTE ] In practice, if they don't have a big pair or better they fold to the 3-bet/4-bet somewhere around 80-90% of the time. And if they do have the big pair and call the re-raise they just check it down unless it improves. Absolute bet size tends to speak first and loudest amongst competing logics. [ QUOTE ] No-one can do this confidently, but based on reads and experience from similar situations, we can relate different holdings to different actions, and we are able to do it with good precision. Further action allows us to narrow down his hand range even more... But since you're under the assumption that "dynamic hand reading is vastly overvalued", I feel it's no use in trying to convince you into thinking the opposite. [/ QUOTE ] By calling his bets, you never gain enough information to either confidently move to take him off a better hand or confidently fold, and so you trap yourself into an incremental black hole. You have no other option but to let him control the action. You pay his price to find out at showdown if he had you beat on the flop and/or if he improved on turn, river. [ QUOTE ] And why is it wrong to let Villain control the pot and continue putting chips without knowing what we have? If Villain has a hand that we beat, he is just as unlikely to improve as we are. Only thing is, we don't have to improve, because we have him beat. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. If villain is behind, he is more likely to improve to a hand that beats us than ouselves in the mirror situation, as I laid-out above. It is wrong to let villain control pot because it reduces, not increases, our expected avg win for being dealt KK. Your first job with a big PP is to go after the avg expected win, not wander down an incremental black hole. [ QUOTE ] You said Bond et al can't see the forest for all the trees, I say it's the other way around. You are too [censored] obsessed with your I-have-already-won-my-expected-share-thinking that you can't see any other way to play than just raise the flop and end it right there. That line is utterly stupid. If you can gain more chips from your opponent by calling, of course you should do so. I don't think betgo posted this hand because he thought his flop play was wrong. [/ QUOTE ] It's not about "gaining more chips from your opponent". It's about maximizing avg expected chips won per chip risked.
|
|
#107
10-03-2007, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
In practice, if they don't have a big pair or better they fold to the 3-bet/4-bet somewhere around 80-90% of the time. And if they do have the big pair and call the re-raise they just check it down unless it improves. Absolute bet size tends to speak first and loudest amongst competing logics. [/ QUOTE ] No, they won't. When your opponent has pegged you down as someone who will check down after having your flop raise flat-called, he will not fold 80% of the time. Instead, he will try to take the pot from you later and you'd have made two big mistakes. 1. You let your opponent know you have a big hand, most likely an overpair, and he will be able to play perfect poker with that information. 2. You ended up folding the best hand on the river Why do you think people take notes? One of the most common notes I put on people is whether they are unable to fold top pair/overpair or if they can be pushed off top pair easily. I use those notes frequently and it has both saved me chips and won me chips... [ QUOTE ] By calling his bets, you never gain enough information to either confidently move to take him off a better hand or confidently fold, and so you trap yourself into an incremental black hole. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong! We can gain lots of information by just calling. It's a common misunderstanding among poker players that we have to "raise to see where we're at". [ QUOTE ] Wrong. If villain is behind, he is more likely to improve to a hand that beats us than ouselves in the mirror situation, as I laid-out above. [/ QUOTE ] Only correct if he has the straight draw, but based on experience, he has a lower pocket pair the times he's behind more often. That's two outs, we can't worry about him drawing to two outs. [ QUOTE ] It's not about "gaining more chips from your opponent". It's about maximizing avg expected chips won per chip risked. [/ QUOTE ] And this statement is still utter crap. I ask again where you have gotten this piece of crap advice from? I'm done discussing this with you, because you just don't seem to get it. Why do you chose to ignore the advice from people that evidently are better poker players than you? Bakes, betgo, Bond, gobbo and Exit all said the same and they are thinking and very successful poker players. Yet, you go against their basic fundamental skills...
|
|
#108
10-03-2007, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
[ QUOTE ]
No, they won't. When your opponent has pegged you down as someone who will check down after having your flop raise flat-called, he will not fold 80% of the time. Instead, he will try to take the pot from you later and you'd have made two big mistakes. 1. You let your opponent know you have a big hand, most likely an overpair, and he will be able to play perfect poker with that information. 2. You ended up folding the best hand on the river Why do you think people take notes? One of the most common notes I put on people is whether they are unable to fold top pair/overpair or if they can be pushed off top pair easily. I use those notes frequently and it has both saved me chips and won me chips... [/ QUOTE ] Obviously, you don't play this the same way every time. User Harrington's watch trick, or whatever. And you mix in other hands too. Sometimes (not very often) you can get away with 3-4bet raising the in position AK miss against a 1/2 pot bet when you suspect villain is firing one shot only. Sometimes when you hit a set in position, 3-4bet a raiser on flop. All it takes is cleaning out villain once. He'll remember that. If this is online, I really doubt many opponents know that much about you. The FTP Sunday .75/1M typically has 4000-5000 entrants. Notes blow up in your face if you stereotype a player who mixes it up. [ QUOTE ] Wrong! We can gain lots of information by just calling. It's a common misunderstanding among poker players that we have to "raise to see where we're at". [/ QUOTE ] Interesting that you and others keep on saying this, but you never come up with the goods. The only info anyone has mentioned is that if villain fires 3 big shots he probably has KK beat. That info is not worth the price. [ QUOTE ] Only correct if he has the straight draw, but based on experience, he has a lower pocket pair the times he's behind more often. That's two outs, we can't worry about him drawing to two outs. [/ QUOTE ] As I said above, 23 has 4 outs, A2,A3,A8 have 5 outs. A4 has 7 outs. 45 has 8 outs. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not about "gaining more chips from your opponent". It's about maximizing avg expected chips won per chip risked. [/ QUOTE ] And this statement is still utter crap. I ask again where you have gotten this piece of crap advice from? [/ QUOTE ] How can you do better than maximizing avg risk-adjusted return ? Doesn't matter the game, whether it's stocks, bonds, horses, poker, blackjack, sports, whatever. You can never do better than maxing avg risk-adjusted return. I guess you don't understand basic probability. [ QUOTE ] I'm done discussing this with you, because you just don't seem to get it. Why do you chose to ignore the advice from people that evidently are better poker players than you? Bakes, betgo, Bond, gobbo and Exit all said the same and they are thinking and very successful poker players. Yet, you go against their basic fundamental skills... [/ QUOTE ] I like to think independently. It's gotten me a great deal of success in life. I'm not ignoring anyone's advice. Exit's point about the 3-4bet being the same as a pure bluff if you have no intention to follow it up is excellent, and I am taking it into account in my play. But I'm not going to become anyone's lapdog which seems to be what you want. A lot of the mantra on these boards boils down to some partially-flawed principles: EV+ situations can never be passed up, dynamic hand reading is the most important skill, hands can be considered in isolation of their current M-bracket tournament context. All of these principles are flawed, and yet everyone here worships them and builds up all their tournament logic from them. I'm not a great player yet, but I can spot fundamental flaws in the logic system.
|
|
#109
10-03-2007, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fold kings?
Congrats, Balto. You win the thread!
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
